I can think of so many places where LSD could use a ped bridge it'd be faster to just bury the damn thing than to list them all.

It'd be better for everyone involved if they'd just rebuild to Dorchester and upzone everything along 63rd Street.

Sorry....but that ship has departed long ago!!

In this day and time, there is no way that the "L" should be going east on 63rd St. to any Dorchester, Jackson Park, or whatever???

I bet you don't know the "why" and the "because" why the "L" came down in the first place.... and it wasn't because of some preachers!!!!


Here is a YouTube I did.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MF32djQtR_E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVgKkb1n7IY

Honestly, the vacancy is so high you could extend the L using the alley north of 63rd. Either that, or condemn a row of lots to the immediate north or south.

That way you still have L service (on a quiet modern concrete viaduct) and it doesn't blight the street.

Of course, the only reason to do a project like that in the face of historical opposition from the community is if you're trying to encourage transfers between CTA and Metra, which is antithetical to the way both agencies operate.

You must don't live here.

Did you read what I posted.

What are you driving at?

A complex mix of racist housing policies, white violence, and black riots in response doomed the East 63rd St shopping district in the 60s and 70s. The crack epidemic in the 80s made it worse. In the 90s, Arthur Brazier pushed for CTA to tear down the L, thinking it would revive the neighborhood. It backfired and only sped up the decline. Now there are 2 blocks of heavily subsidized housing, Brazier's church with massive parking lots, and a ton of vacant land. What part am I missing?

I am try to agree that the 63rd St. is not needed now.... transit needs are different now. JUMP is faster than Green line.

Secondly, it wasn't the two preachers that got the "L" down.....it was the UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. If we can agree in that, we can talk so more. Other wise?????

Ending the Violence -- 10,000 New Jobs......
 

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20140...ent-1422155356

I am going to be addressing CTA's next Board meeting at 10am this Wednesday June 11th., I really wish you could attend and hear what I have to say, because I am REALLY going to hold their feet to the fire about this!

Mr. Mike.....Is this your statment? It would create 10,000 New Permanent Jobs in the poor Black Communities on Chicago's South and Southeast Sides. It would put a new CTA "L" station 4 blocks from where teacher Betty Howard was killed, and 3 blocks from the E. 79th St Laundromat where 6 people were shot; without ANY New Major Construction (it's already there, it's running each and every day): http://www.chicagobusiness.com... http://gridchicago.com/2012/co...

I lived in Chatham for over 40 yrs until 2006, so I know all of it's problems, and what would be one of the BEST possible solutions to them.

The BIG problem is that CTA and Metra (actually Mayor Emanuel all by himself) cannot, will not, and "na-na-na-na-na - you-can't-make-me" WORK TOGETHER.

Heck, I can't even get any Black People to support me!

I am going to be addressing CTA's next Board meeting at 10am on next Wednesday June 11th., I really wish you could attend and hear what I have to say, because I am REALLY going to hold their feet to the fire about this -- I might just end up getting myself arrested.

PLEASE contact me Mr. Glover (or anyone else seeking information) at: grayline15@yahoo.com



You have doing this since 1996.....almost 20 years???? Of course, I have given you my reasons over and over, why, you've met failure so far....1. No one wants to ride Metra Electric and pay two fares. And 2., no one thinks there are 10,000 available by riding Metra Electric.

Don't get youself locked up. It ain't worth it.....be cool.

Two fares? I'm a little confused on what you mean by that. If the line is converted to a CTA line, wouldn't you only need to pay pay with one fare?

Confused????

Has the CTA offered converted fare???? 18 years this plan has been on the table.

This is a dream of one man.....Mike. 18 years.

Well that response still didn't answer my question so I'm not going to ponder into this any further.

So your issue is just that it's politically unfeasible? Or you have other problems with the Gray Line plan?

If it's the latter, put them forward. If it's the former, that seems to point to a failure of the citizens of Chicago to push for this (which could potentially be overcome if Mike had some help...).

It is the latter! Plan is unfeasible!

There is no FAILURE!

What is to don't see?

a few years ago I had done some research on transit expansion and interviewed a retired CTA planner:

Authority is shying away from addressing the issues: The Gray Line proposal is about turf battles (CTA/METRA), and the proposer [Michael Payne] is not a professional planner. Electric line is there but is not regarded as an official plan. Fare integration projects have been tested. 60 yrs or so ago, that S.Shore Electric line was the rapid transit to Hyde Park and South Side but the service became infrequent. -H.Hirsch, CTA Planner, Retired

whenever there is recognition, it is referred to as gold line or some other iteration cause it's primarily the fact that a community organizer (outsider) is behind the proposal that it is not taken seriously, which is a shame.

Well, the "outsider" has kind of soiled his own bed, by lurching from rationales based in cost-effectiveness of transportation service to wild arguments about racial justice and fantasies that a mere increase in transit service will inexorably result in economic development. Any time it's suggested that he's overstated the benefits or (vastly) underestimated the costs, he changes the subject and points to the Block 37 superstation investment or plays the race card. There's a reason he's no longer taken seriously.

But I will say that Harry Hirsch is a tool of the first order, who was perfectly content to preside over the CTA's death spiral of the 1980s, his big career accomplishment being cutting some more service hours out of each pick.

informative. and i do appreciate the depth of knowledge you bring to the table.

mr. payne is quite direct and capable of defending this, but i always supported the grey line.

if he has dealt the race card, there's a full deck to go around in this city.

Thanks for this. That actually makes the proposal much more interesting to me. What I'm hearing is, the Gray (Gold) Line has no chance because of the person supporting it (and politics).

What I haven't heard is that it's a less cost-effective way to bring transit to the south lakefront/far South Side. Intuitively, using existing infrastructure should be significantly less expensive than building a brand new extension, and this line does go through much denser neighborhoods. Makes me think it makes more sense than a Red Line extension (politics aside).

Obviously we're missing data, but does anyone think that absent politics/turf wars that the Red Line extension is preferable to the Gray (Gold) Line?

Possibly. The Red Line offers a one-seat ride to many important destinations, including the entire North Side. Metra Electric dead ends at Randolph Street and intersects with exactly zero CTA lines, so the network effects are pretty minimal.

The Grey/Gold Line is a good plan for stimulating the growth of the South Lakefront, which should be a desirable planning goal in itself, but it's not a great plan in terms of connecting South Siders to jobs and social/educational opportunities.

by whom? people on the far south side, or posters on this board?

again, grey line is not official. and not to take away from payne's effort, but those who would be most affected have not been given this option, or even have info.